PDA

View Full Version : BBEG does it always have to be evil?



slaydemons
2011-04-06, 02:14 PM
Well this is a question about big bad evil guys or campaign end bosses, do the always have to be evil? I just thought of a campaign idea where the end boss wants to kill the gods. He is doing it so people aren't shackled to the idea of fate or destiny, so people can live free. This is what is going on through his mind, is this truly evil or just a differences in opinions? eh is an ends justify the means kind of guy.

Zaranthan
2011-04-06, 02:24 PM
Of course not. BBEG is a trope, the "Big Bad" can just as easily be a Paladin who's convinced the artifact he's after will allow him to purge all evil outsiders from the Prime Material. Never mind that it's actually Yog Sothoth's prison, he doesn't know that and won't believe anybody who tells him such.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 02:25 PM
No, BBEGs aren't always evil, especially if you run an evil campaign. That being said, you're basically building an Ozymandias for your BBEG. What he's doing, he's doing for the 'greater good.' His means are reprehensible at best, and EVIL at worst (yes, I'm saying that there's a difference between evil, Evil, and EVIL). He's probably going to be Lawful Evil perhaps with (very slight) Lawful Neutral leanings. His motivations may be pure, but evil means (strictly speaking) = evil alignment.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 02:25 PM
In other words, no.

A BBEG can be anything, as long as he's the person your party is trying to stop/take down/rob/whatever.

EDIT: Because this is a game, you may of course have the hilarious scenario where your players join your BBEG.

It's happened to me a lot.

The Rose Dragon
2011-04-06, 02:48 PM
Not necessarily. Evil is not exactly an objective quality, after all. What one might call evil may be virtuous to another.

Yora
2011-04-06, 02:53 PM
A nice twist would be that the antagonists are actually good and the protagonists are actually working for an evil NPC. However I think it's quite difficult to pull off well.

Kalirren
2011-04-06, 03:04 PM
Evil is less important than alien, actually. Evil is an alien motivation to most, but certainly not the only such motivation. Really, the only defining character of a Big Bad is that the narrative is structured to preclude any sympathy for their position.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 03:05 PM
Really, the only defining character of a Big Bad is that the narrative is structured to preclude any sympathy for their position.

...

No it isn't, not necessarily.

Amnestic
2011-04-06, 03:08 PM
Really, the only defining character of a Big Bad is that the narrative is structured to preclude any sympathy for their position.

I disagree. I find motivations for Big Bads which can be sympathised with generally a lot more interesting to play and play against. Especially when Good PCs are involved.

bloodtide
2011-04-06, 03:14 PM
No they don't have to be evil, or even bad. all they need to do is something that some people oppose.

Take a classic-The paladin wants to build a new bridge to the temple, in the river elf lands. Now if your a river elf, that paladin is a BBEG.


The same way a BBEG can just be a rival. There is only one Orb of Magic, so anyone trying to get it is a BBEG to you.

Kalirren
2011-04-06, 03:17 PM
I disagree. I find motivations for Big Bads which can be sympathised with generally a lot more interesting to play and play against. Especially when Good PCs are involved.

But isn't that the point at which a Big Bad Evil Guy ceases being the Big Bad and just becomes a garden-variety Evil Guy?

I do agree, by the way, that garden-variety Evil people are more interesting to play and play against. It's the ones with completely alien motivations that stride the line into BBEG-hood and horror gaming.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 03:21 PM
But isn't that the point at which a Big Bad Evil Guy ceases being the Big Bad and just becomes a garden-variety Evil Guy?

No, the "garden-variety" Evil Guy is **** Dastardly, a bad man who is evil for the sake of it, who would, for example, cheat in a race that he is already winning based on principle alone.

More nuanced bad guys can be sympathetic (Redcloak), on the side of the right (Detective Zenigata) or completely and utterly alien (Hastur).

Naki
2011-04-06, 03:22 PM
Well-Intentioned Extremists (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) are Big Bad Good Guys, most of the time. They have good intentions, want to do the right thing, but do so in ways that that PCs simply cannot agree with. Destroying the Macguffin might be something both the PCs and the BBGG both want. The BBGG, however, is willing sacrifice all of the people between him and the Macguffin on the way, because they're protecting it. The PCs probably shouldn't think this is a good idea.

Alternatively, Good Guys who are Evil for the sake of Good. "Every story needs a hero and a villain. If it must come to pass, then it is up to me to be the villain so that the hero might succeed!" Some BBGG might want to do the right thing, but don't have the power to do it themselves, and instead, become the villain to give rise to someone who might.

To say that All BBEG have to be Evil is probably a tad narrow. Evil acts does not Evil Make. (It just looks that way to everyone else!)

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 03:35 PM
Evil acts does not Evil Make.
Technically, if the OP is playing DnD 3.x, by RAW, enough evil acts do make you evil, regardless of intent. Other systems (especially Palladium) are a little more lenient. Some systems (like Rolemaster/HARP) don't even have alignments.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 03:37 PM
To say that All BBEG have to be Evil is probably a tad narrow. Evil acts does not Evil Make. (It just looks that way to everyone else!)

Actually, yes they do, in combination with intent or not. The man who kills a thousand babies to save a thousand in the future is still evil.

slaydemons
2011-04-06, 03:41 PM
Technically, if the OP is playing DnD 3.x, by RAW, enough evil acts do make you evil, regardless of intent. Other systems (especially Palladium) are a little more lenient. Some systems (like Rolemaster/HARP) don't even have alignments.

I am, but he isn't going to kill anyone (besides gods) he is working up an army of monsters (monsters who follow his ideals) and others.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 03:58 PM
I am, but he isn't going to kill anyone (besides gods) he is working up an army of monsters (monsters who follow his ideals) and others.There are other evil acts besides killing people. Raising an army of monsters may qualify, depending on the alignments of the monsters in question.

If the monsters are evil, they (if intelligent enough) may see this as the perfect opportunity to rape and pillage their way across the countryside. In this instance, the fact that he is using evil monsters that cannot be controlled, would make him fairly evil, unless he's so ignorant of what's going on around him that he doesn't know what the monsters are doing.

However, if the evil monsters are very well-controlled, he may just be some sort of neutral (Lawful, True, or Chaotic) with evil tendencies.

If the monsters are composed of Neutral and/or Good creatures, he may not qualify as truly evil, and would most likely be Neutral.

I sincerely doubt that this particular BBEG could ever qualify as good. He's not considering all the harm he could do by slaying the gods. (Unless you're using the "Gods are Distant and Unconcerned" approach to deities, but even then, saying he's good-aligned would be pushing it, IMO.)

slaydemons
2011-04-06, 04:08 PM
I see your point smiles but to call him evil is going too far as well as he is doing it so people get to choose what happens to them.

Yuki Akuma
2011-04-06, 04:14 PM
Yes, a Big Bad Evil Guy has to be evil.

No, there's no reason you couldn't have a BBNG or a BBGG.

Eldan
2011-04-06, 04:15 PM
A question: why is your god killer character in the OP to be opposed? As a player, depending on his methods, I'd probably join him. But that's just my general dislike for divine bullies, fate and destiny in general.

Oh, great. Now I need to join the Free League, Sensates, Bleakers, Fraternity of Order and the Athar.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 04:20 PM
I see your point smiles but to call him evil is going too far as well as he is doing it so people get to choose what happens to them.What about all the harm that could come from not having deities? How about all the collateral damage his actions cause?
Intent, by DnD RAW, does not describe alignment, actions do.

Instigating a nuclear war to save humanity from itself? Evil.
Summoning hordes of undead to save the princess from sacrifice? Evil.
Organizing an army of evil monsters to save humanity from a worse evil? Still evil.
Organizing an army of evil monsters to destroy the gods because he thinks destiny is a bad thing? I'm calling that evil.

Freylorn
2011-04-06, 04:26 PM
I'm going to go against the grain here and argue (for the sake of argument, mind you) that yes, the BBEG does indeed have to be evil. This is for one reason alone.

It's in the name.

The abbreviation is Big Bad EVIL Guy. Now, is it alright to have a BBNG? Or a BBGG? Sure! Of course! The campaign boss can be whatever you want!

But I'd argue that the specific term BBEG requires an Evil character.

EDIT: I just noticed that Yuki made almost the exact same comment I did. Consider this just a +1 for her answer, then.

Tengu_temp
2011-04-06, 04:33 PM
Of course that the antagonist does not have to be evil. In fact, one of my campaigns had no evil antagonists at all, just a group of anarchists of various degrees of jerkitude and sanity (while the PCs were pretty much law enforcement). Although I'm not sure if they really counted as BBEGs, seeing that the final boss is a sealed monster in a can and most of them joined forces with the PCs to fight it, but they were the antagonists for the majority of the game.


Not necessarily. Evil is not exactly an objective quality, after all. What one might call evil may be virtuous to another.

I really don't like this argument. I've yet to see it used in a context other than pure speculation without any examples, or justification for acting like an ********. I believe that there is a certain set of acts that everyone, except very twisted individuals/cultures, considers good, and those that everyone (except those individuals/cultures) considers evil.

The Rose Dragon
2011-04-06, 04:38 PM
I really don't like this argument. I've yet to see it used in a context other than pure speculation without any examples, or justification for acting like an ********. I believe that there is a certain set of acts that everyone, except very twisted individuals/cultures, considers good, and those that everyone (except those individuals/cultures) considers evil.

Yes, but those acts are very few, and those cultures are many (and not at all that twisted). I think the main problem is that I cannot give any examples that aren't unrealistic extremes without going into verboten topics

Ertwin
2011-04-06, 04:42 PM
if you look back at the most effective villans in literature and cinima and what not, the most effective villans are the ones that believe they are doing good.

The least effective villans are the ones that go "I'm gonna do this because I'm evil"

Even the Joker has motivations beyond just being evil.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 04:45 PM
Yes, but those acts are very few, and those cultures are many (and not at all that twisted). I think the main problem is that I cannot give any examples that aren't unrealistic extremes without going into verboten topicsWell, in DnD 3.x, which the OP has said is being used, evil does have relatively objective definitions. Shall I? I think I shall.

(Spoilered for length.)

Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawful Evil, "Dominator"

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

The Rose Dragon
2011-04-06, 04:49 PM
Well, in DnD 3.x, which the OP has said is being used, evil does have relatively objective definitions. Shall I? I think I shall.

I will note that was established after my post, rather than before.

slaydemons
2011-04-06, 04:50 PM
well then my question and some has been answered thank you everyone

Edit: I am using 3.5 but my question was for general purposes

Yuki Akuma
2011-04-06, 05:10 PM
her

The blue Mars symbol means "male".

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-06, 05:13 PM
A question: why is your god killer character in the OP to be opposed? As a player, depending on his methods, I'd probably join him. But that's just my general dislike for divine bullies, fate and destiny in general.

Well, in a linear timeline, you're screwed on both counts of fighting fate and destiny. :smallamused:

As for divine bullies, deiciding the meddlers would be fine, but what about the nature spirits, the ascended, and otherwise? Why fight a divine bully when you can become one?


The blue Mars symbol means "male".

The pony, however, seems to indicate female to most people. I think avatars are just more noticeable than the gender tag.

Freylorn
2011-04-06, 05:14 PM
The blue Mars symbol means "male".

Oh my. :smalleek:

My SINCEREST apologies. That'll teach me to pay closer attention!

_Zoot_
2011-04-06, 06:22 PM
In my current game, the "BBEG" is simply doing her Patriotic duty, and that has caused the deaths of millions of people because of the war that it started. However, the person that the party is working for is simply doing his Patriotic Duty, and had the party had chosen to work with the other team I think he would be a more believable BBEG, because of the plan he has to end the war.

Who is bad depends of your point of view, because the party decided to join with one power, the other becomes the enemy. At least, that's how my current game works.

Ormur
2011-04-06, 06:45 PM
Make characters first, settle on alignments later.

The most important thing is what the player's reaction to his actions will be not whether he detects as good or evil.

It's pretty hard to make a convincing antagonist that isn't somewhat evil (whatever the intentions and demeanour) I guess it's possible depending on the group.

NichG
2011-04-06, 07:31 PM
I've had all sorts of different things happen based on how the players felt their own beliefs coincided with the intended-to-be-BBEG. For instance, I had a BBEG who was trying to deconstruct reality to discover the truth underlying everything. The players ended up deciding to help him accomplish his plans in a non-destroying-the-universe sort of way, rather than just stopping him.

Another case was where the BBEG was an overdeity that had created a 'perfect' (in its eyes) version of reality, and was stealing souls from other realities and merging them with their perfected versions so that they wouldn't have to suffer imperfection. The PCs basically befriended, coopted, and in one case consumed enough of the overdeity's servitors that their own universe was cut free as 'irredeemable', and then ignored the overdeity's grand plan in favor of other concerns.

Conclusion: If I really want to make sure the party ended up in conflict with my proto-BBEGs, I need to do more to make the party hate them, rather than just be opposed to them.

Lord Raziere
2011-04-06, 08:06 PM
Well, in a linear timeline, you're screwed on both counts of fighting fate and destiny. :smallamused:

As for divine bullies, deiciding the meddlers would be fine, but what about the nature spirits, the ascended, and otherwise? Why fight a divine bully when you can become one?


cause I don't want to be a divine bully. I want to be the guy who kills the divine bullies.

Eldan
2011-04-09, 03:43 PM
cause I don't want to be a divine bully. I want to be the guy who kills the divine bullies.

Exactly that. I mean, I wouldn't mind a bit of divine power, but I wouldn't walk around making decrees or laws or commandments or any of that stuff. Or demand worship. That's despicable, really.

dsmiles
2011-04-09, 04:18 PM
Exactly that. I mean, I wouldn't mind a bit of divine power, but I wouldn't walk around making decrees or laws or commandments or any of that stuff. Or demand worship. That's despicable, really.Out of curiosity, how would that work in a "Deities require worshipers to have power" type of system?

Fable Wright
2011-04-09, 06:34 PM
Out of curiosity, how would that work in a "Deities require worshipers to have power" type of system?

I think it would be like divine rank 0- you do gain some great, rather generic godly abilities that enhance your personal abilities, but not the wizard-like reality manipulating of the higher-level gods.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-09, 06:41 PM
I like my deities to be mysterious and unstatted, they just are. This also means that people who worship the gods can have different ideas of the god. It's hard to have a religious disagreement when Pelor can come down and say "Dude, I totally did not mean it like that, so stop this 'Burning Hate' stuff, 'k?"

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-09, 06:48 PM
It would be interesting if you had "Pelor as the Burning Hate" believers in a campaign where you were following the whole "gods shaped by belief" mechanic. Over time, Pelor would gradually morph from benevolent sun god to tyrannical avatar of the unconquered sun.

Speaking of which, I once knew this dude, a player, wanted to play an atheist cleric, all good so far, nothing in the rules against that... but his backstory involved Paladins and clerics of Pelor butchering halfling followers of Yondalla without falling (the reason for his loss of faith).

I was thinking, dude, your backstory really shouldn't hinge upon altering fundamental aspects of the campaign tapestry just to support your own personal hang-ups.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-09, 06:52 PM
I had a charachter who was a Nay-theist. The gods existed, duh, but they didn't think these beings were worthy of worship.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-09, 06:55 PM
In a campaign setting with active deities, I actually like misotheist characters better than atheist characters (which would be the rough equivalent of, say, not believing in gravity, or thermodynamics, or... or... SPELL SLOTS.) Yes, there are gods, says the misotheist. Yes, they are mighty. And yes, I will **** them up to the best of my ability if I can get powerful enough.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-09, 07:07 PM
Yeah, TV tropes has a trope for atheism in an otherwise typical fantasy setting, Flat Earth Atheist, and mentions the logical pitfalls thereof. A similar use is when a scientist ignores evidence of what can, for a lack of a better word, be called magic happens right before their eyes. I can understand being perplexed by this rather active demonstration that current understanding of the laws of physics is so very wrong, but science isn't about being right, it is about being wrong, it is about testing ideas. I feel like Sokka from Avatar. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmHoNr3kUZY)

absolmorph
2011-04-09, 10:11 PM
Well-Intentioned Extremists (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) are Big Bad Good Guys, most of the time. They have good intentions, want to do the right thing, but do so in ways that that PCs simply cannot agree with. Destroying the Macguffin might be something both the PCs and the BBGG both want. The BBGG, however, is willing sacrifice all of the people between him and the Macguffin on the way, because they're protecting it. The PCs probably shouldn't think this is a good idea.

Alternatively, Good Guys who are Evil for the sake of Good. "Every story needs a hero and a villain. If it must come to pass, then it is up to me to be the villain so that the hero might succeed!" Some BBGG might want to do the right thing, but don't have the power to do it themselves, and instead, become the villain to give rise to someone who might.

To say that All BBEG have to be Evil is probably a tad narrow. Evil acts does not Evil Make. (It just looks that way to everyone else!)


Yes, a Big Bad Evil Guy has to be evil.

No, there's no reason you couldn't have a BBNG or a BBGG.

Actually, one of the coolest Big Bads I've seen was posted on this forum: a Planar Sheperd who wanted to heal people, and was... somewhat aggressive in their methods (they used the Positive Energy Plane). Not someone who wants to hurt people, or is trying to hurt people; all the death they'd cause would be by healing people.
So, basically, +1 to Yuki's response.

Mutazoia
2011-04-11, 06:03 PM
The least effective villans are the ones that go "I'm gonna do this because I'm evil"

I think Sauron would disagree with you on that point :smallbiggrin:

Although I think a villain sitting around thinking of Evil things to do because he's evil smacks a bit like Doofinshmirtz (http://www.tv.com/phineas-and-ferb/the-lake-nose-monster-parts-1-and-2/episode/1251908/summary.html)

Step 1: Drain the Zinc out of the lake
Step 2: ?
Step 3: EVIL!

Roderick_BR
2011-04-12, 09:36 AM
Technically, if the OP is playing DnD 3.x, by RAW, enough evil acts do make you evil, regardless of intent. Other systems (especially Palladium) are a little more lenient. Some systems (like Rolemaster/HARP) don't even have alignments.
It means that in games without alignment rules, no one is evil?

In my opinion, D&D alignment system is a kind of "becoming the mask". A stretch of that "gaze upon the abyss" thing (yes, I know the meaning of the original quote)


No they don't have to be evil, or even bad. all they need to do is something that some people oppose.

Take a classic-The paladin wants to build a new bridge to the temple, in the river elf lands. Now if your a river elf, that paladin is a BBEG.


The same way a BBEG can just be a rival. There is only one Orb of Magic, so anyone trying to get it is a BBEG to you.

That paladin is not very Good if he's destroying land that belongs to other (non-evil) people...

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-12, 09:37 AM
I prefer to look at alignment as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. You define your alignment, not the other way around. An alignment is simply a way to describe your perceptions of the way a person acts.

There's a very good reason I use the 2E version of detect evil for 3.5 Paladins.

hamishspence
2011-04-12, 09:38 AM
I think Sauron would disagree with you on that point :smallbiggrin:


Tolkien's notes suggest that even Sauron was, for a time, a Well Intentioned Extremist.

Morgoth's Ring is the main source for Sauron's motives in trying to take over the world.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-12, 09:41 AM
Yes. And this drive even shows itself in Gandalf's thesis as to how Sauron's ring, imbued with his power and malice, would affect a strong wielder like a Maia or Aragorn. They'd start out active and hopeful and hankering for change... and eventually become just as evil and throne bound as Sauron, possibly in a shorter time.

Jayabalard
2011-04-12, 10:00 AM
No, BBEGs aren't always evil, especially if you run an evil campaign. Yeah they are... if they're not evil then they're the BBNG or BBGG, or BBUG

Mastikator
2011-04-12, 11:54 AM
A nice twist would be that the antagonists are actually good and the protagonists are actually working for an evil NPC. However I think it's quite difficult to pull off well.

Honestly this seems like the easiest way to have good or neutral protagonists face a good antagonist.
Though, it could easily twist and turn the evil NPC into the big bad and the last big bad into a helping NPC.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-12, 12:36 PM
Of course they have to! The acronym comes from "Big Bad Evil Guy"! :smalltongue: No ambiguity there.

Unless, of course, you use to mean Big Benevolent Exalted Guy. >.>

But seriously, like has been said over and over again, the main antagonist doesn't have to be evil. Just like the protagonists (read: the PCs) can be evil, the antagonist can be anything under the sun (or beyond).

And he doesn't have to be extremist of any kind either. Take for example a soldier of a foreign nation. He isn't fighting the PCs to further some great agenda of his own, he's just trying to protect his homeland from them. He is not trying to kill them because he thinks it needs to be done, but because the PCs are not giving him other options. (Obviosly, if new options do present themselves, he'll try and follow them.) Outside the battlefield, he donates to orphanages to atone for his sins, has a wife and few kids.

He isn't in conflict with the PCs because he's a bad person. He's not in conflict them even because they are bad persons. It's just that his duty stands between them and a cordial solution.

Eric Tolle
2011-04-14, 12:27 PM
I had a charachter who was a Nay-theist. The gods existed, duh, but they didn't think these beings were worthy of worship.

But...you worship the gods, and they give you stuff. That sounds eminently practical to me.

Note: this is actually not dissimilar to a lot of real-world worship traditions. It's not so much that the deities are inherently worthy of worship, but that worshiping them has practical benefits.



Yes, there are gods, says the misotheist. Yes, they are mighty. And yes, I will **** them up to the best of my ability if I can get powerful enough.

And oh that's just great. Now you've screwed up the natural aspect that they represent. No more love, or rain, or sun. Nice job breaking it, hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero).

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-14, 12:29 PM
... yeah. When the gods actually are natural forces, figthing them is about as wise as fighting gravity (actually, the exact same thing).

If you somehow succeed, the ramifications tend to be... interesting.

Mutazoia
2011-04-14, 01:16 PM
But...you worship the gods, and they give you stuff. That sounds eminently practical to me.

I once knew a guy who, back in the days of 2nd ed where, if you killed a god you acquired the god's powers, decided to attempt just that. His big bad Fighter/thief/Cleric challenged his god to a death match. It started out a little something like this:

DM (as the god in question): You want to kill me and take my power? ok <snaps fingers>
DM (as the DM): You suddenly don't feel so holy any more..
Player: Oh crap...


Note: this is actually not dissimilar to a lot of real-world worship traditions. It's not so much that the deities are inherently worthy of worship, but that worshiping them has practical benefits.

Man...I have the perfect response to this..but can't post it...last time I did the mod's decided it was a rules infraction lol

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-14, 05:37 PM
And oh that's just great. Now you've screwed up the natural aspect that they represent. No more love, or rain, or sun. Nice job breaking it, hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero).

There are gods of murder and war, you know. :smallamused:

Also, frankly, killing that bastard Pelor would really do the world a favor. DEATH TO THE BURNING HATE!

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-14, 05:39 PM
Uh, Pelor is a god of sun, right? A world without sun... doesn't ring any alarm bells for you? XD

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-14, 05:40 PM
The burning hate SNEERS at your real-world physics.

Amnestic
2011-04-14, 06:32 PM
Uh, Pelor is a god of sun, right? A world without sun... doesn't ring any alarm bells for you? XD

Don't portfolios for dead gods generally get covered by their compatriots/replacement gods? Might be setting dependent I suppose.

Gray Mage
2011-04-14, 07:02 PM
But...you worship the gods, and they give you stuff. That sounds eminently practical to me.

Note: this is actually not dissimilar to a lot of real-world worship traditions. It's not so much that the deities are inherently worthy of worship, but that worshiping them has practical benefits.


It's not really a benefit since a cleric without a god has the same abilities as one with a god.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-14, 07:14 PM
It's not really a benefit since a cleric without a god has the same abilities as one with a god.

No, and not in all settings.

Most notably, a cleric who worships a god does gain his powers from said god, and if the cleric is acting uppity, the god can go "that's it, no more prayers for you".

Clerics worshipping aspects aren't in as short a leash, but neither do they exist in strongly theistic settings.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-14, 07:16 PM
And before someone says "then why should my cleric worship a god if it means someone else has control of my powers?", that's terrible metagaming right there.